I am sorry, but it is clear you did not fully read either link.
The
Mueller indictment was literally a list of who, what, when, and where. That’s as clear and specific as you could want.
The
Intelligence Community Assessment made specific claims, and provided the supporting evidence (when it wasn’t confidential.)
I skimmed them, looking for key points. I didn't see Putin's name anywhere in the indictment. The Russians involved may have been working for themselves or another third party; it doesn't prove it was an official action by the Russian government.
In any case, an assessment and an indictment do not constitute actual convictions. Why don't we wait until there's an actual trial in court before we start jumping the gun?
For example, a key judgment was:
We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.
This is a clear and specific claim.
Evidence of the key judgements are offered further down. For example, regarding the above claim here is an excerpt:
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists.
See pg 3 for the rest. Incidentally, there’s now incontrovertible
proof that Guccifer
2.0 is GRU.
Your claims that no evidence was provided in those links are clearly baseless.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by “double talk”. A specific example? That’s such a mushy, non-specific term.
The phrase "we assess with high confidence" is just a way of saying "we are making a guess." That's double talk. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. Every conspiracy theory on Earth has "evidence," but in order to actually
prove something beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, there has to be more.
You have to read between the lines and see exactly what they're saying. (As a side note, I would mention that Russians are extremely good at reading between the lines in public statements and media. When you grow up with Izvestiya and Pravda, it's a skill that becomes second nature.)
What I find interesting is that I would observe an inequality of treatment based on public perceptions of an organization or source. More on that in a moment.
As for the specific claim itself and the evidence that a Russian intelligence agency may be a persona named "Guccifer 2.0" - that, in and of itself, raises some questions. I would have no doubt that every government in the world has certain skilled individuals working for an intel or other agency involved in cyber security or computer espionage of some sort. We have such an intelligence gathering apparatus, as do other countries. Any country would be foolish not to have such an apparatus in place. That doesn't necessarily imply any ill-intention or any particular motive.
They also mentioned WikiLeaks, and this reminded me that we haven't heard much about Edward Snowden lately. His name doesn't appear in either document you linked. I actually think WikiLeaks is fighting the good fight. Like many other well-meaning people, they believe that governments and politicians are prone to crooked activities, so they want to get under the hood, see what they're up to, and report it to the public. The people have a right to know. Snowden's motives were similar. He felt that what the government was doing was wrong, and he felt he had to do the right thing despite the consequences.
Put into this perspective, does this represent an "attack" on democracy, or is it more in the name of democracy and the public's right to know?
That was analogy: your use of “speculation” to refer to expert and evidenced investigative conclusions is akin to a creationist scoffing at evolution for being merely a theory.
I do not believe that we (as humans) know much, if anything, for certain. I don’t think that’s a reasonable standard.
It is clear that “speculation” does not refer to everything not known for certain. Speculation generally refers to opinions not backed by firm evidence. There are many things backed by firm evidence that we do not know for certain, such as the Big Bang theory or that Homer wrote the Odyssey; and we don’t consider these “speculations”.
The Assessment is certainly backed by hard data, and expert analysis. It is definitionally incorrect to consider it speculation.
And furthermore, it is misleading to use verbiage to imply that an assessment by our intelligence agencies is worth no more than the idle theories proposed on this forum.
The key difference is, in the realm of science - particularly the hard sciences - it's all open, accessible, and available to the general public. They present their evidence and welcome others to examine it. They write papers, books, conduct lectures and seminars - they
want their peers to know what they're doing and have no real secrets or anything to hide (although there have been instances of academic fraud and dishonesty, but that's another story). They invite questions, disagreements, arguments.
It's actually a long, slow, and arduous process, which can take years or even decades. A scientist doesn't just come up with something and expects everyone to believe it. They expect strong challenges and objective scrutinization of the evidence. Even the Theory of Evolution was not instantly accepted overnight.
Intelligence agencies don't operate that way.
They're also distinct from police and law enforcement agencies in the sense that police agencies have guidelines and restrictions about how they gather and handle evidence, with the intention of openly presenting it in a public court of law. Both sides are allowed to view and examine the evidence and have their own experts scrutinize it. It's all supposed to be open and available in a public forum. (It doesn't always work that way, and there have been numerous cases of police malfeasance, corruption, and other dirty dealings, but that's another topic.)
Intelligence agencies operate for a different purpose. They have a different mission in the geopolitical sphere. They are, perhaps, a necessary evil in the world. There have always been spies and other such covert operatives in every empire, every government, and even many non-governmental entities. Among their tasks is to gain information however they can - and sometimes their methods of doing so can be called into question. Oftentimes the actual evidence and raw data is kept shrouded, so all we really have are their "assessments" - meaning that we're supposed to take their word for it that all of this exists.
It's for this reason that I can't accept them in the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
As far as the worthiness of assessments, whether it comes from a supposed "expert" or just some random poster on this forum - I do believe in a certain sense of fairness and equality in that regard. This is especially true when it comes to the social sciences - philosophy, politics, history, even religion. Each of us has our own particular way of looking at the world, and I don't see that there are definitive "wrong" or "right" answers in that regard. The rules of evidence are also slightly different, since it's acknowledged that social sciences are generally more speculative than the hard sciences which go through more rigorous scrutiny (although they also allow some room for speculation).
It's also a matter of presentation. You say "it is misleading to use verbiage to imply that an assessment by our intelligence agencies is worth no more than the idle theories proposed on this forum." I consider this a value judgment, a statement of trust in our intelligence agencies over some idle theory proposed on this forum.
My view is that people can and will make up their own mind and believe what they want. I'm not trying to mislead anybody. I take idle theories as they come. But I also try to differentiate between the realm of theories, claims, and evidence (science) versus actual accusations and proposals to take action (politics).
This is what we're arguing about, not anything at all analogous to Evolution vs. Creation.
Mind you, I'm not automatically disbelieving the intelligence agencies here. Our disagreement here also appears to be differences in perceptions of how our reaction should be. You say that this is an "attack on democracy," which is a serious accusation, and you've also stated that Russia should be punished for this transgression. You criticize those who appear to be downplaying it or not considering it as serious a violation. This is the crux of our disagreement, not necessarily a dispute over the evidence that the Russians are involved in a lot of cloak-and-dagger stuff, which I've never denied.
